Santosh Dnyandev Gavali vs State of Maharashtra — 41/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHAU170001772026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

26-02-2026

Filing Number

100/2026

Filing Date

26-02-2026

Registration No

41/2026

Registration Date

26-02-2026

Court

Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court

Judge

1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

55

Police Station

MIDC PAITHAN

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 1191,1181,1152,352,3512,35

Petitioner(s)

Santosh Dnyandev Gavali

Adv. Gavali P.N.

Shubham Santosh Gavali

Respondent(s)

State of Maharashtra

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge

18-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

Order

16-03-2026

Order

13-03-2026

Order

12-03-2026

Order

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case 41/2026 Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Paithan rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Santosh Dnyandev Gavali and Shubham Santosh Gavali under Section 482 BNS 2023. The applicants were accused of assaulting an informant and snatching Rs. 2,000, and jointly assaulting another person with an axe. The court found that CCTV footage corroborated the allegations, custodial interrogation was necessary for weapon and cash recovery, and the applicants' prior criminal history weighed against granting bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 41/2026 Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Paithan rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Santosh Dnyandev Gavali and Shubham Santosh Gavali under Section 482 BNS 2023. The applicants were accused of assaulting an informant and snatching Rs. 2,000, and jointly assaulting another person with an axe. The court found that CCTV footage corroborated the allegations, custodial interrogation was necessary for weapon and cash recovery, and the applicants' prior criminal history weighed against granting bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case